Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (8952)	5/29/2006 12:29:36 AM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Because the straight face is black and up until a little while ago, that's all they had to say was racists and everyone jumped through hoops...this has nothing to do with color, the man is a crook...

To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (8952)	5/31/2006 2:15:59 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

The Justice Department went overboard in raiding Rep. Jefferson's office. Tuesday, May 30, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT With the separation of powers, the Founders created a system with inevitable tension between Congress and the executive. Congress has been the biggest offender in stealing power from the executive in the modern era, but the May 20 FBI raid on the legislative office of William Jefferson (D., La.) seems a case in which the Justice Department has gone overboard, and even been insubordinate. Both Republican and Democratic leaders in the House have protested, prompting media clucking that Members aren't "above the law." Having spent years trying to get Congress to live by the laws it imposes on the rest of us, we couldn't agree more. However, Congress is uniquely protected in one vital sense--in its act of legislating, under the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution. In the most obvious case, this protects Members as they consider legislation on the House or Senate floor. This also arguably includes papers and other material in Member offices that are related to legislating. In the case of Mr. Jefferson, Justice clearly had reason to consider a search. The Congressman is suspected of taking bribes, individuals have already pleaded guilty to paying him and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors, and a search of his home found $90,000 in his freezer. Mr. Jefferson says he has done nothing wrong, but we doubt he has found the miracle of an icebox that pays interest on deposits. Yet with all of this evidence in hand, the question is why prosecutors also felt the need to raid Mr. Jefferson's office in the middle of the night--the first such raid in the history of Congress. They surely knew the raid would prompt embarrassing headlines, and for ambitious prosecutors that motive can never be ruled out. With Congress currently low in opinion polls, Justice officials may also have felt they could indulge in this kind of intimidation. If they really believe Mr. Jefferson is running a criminal enterprise out of his Capitol Hill office, they could always negotiate the parameters of such a search with House leaders. Justice also hasn't helped its case with its bullying behavior after Speaker Denny Hastert denounced the raid. Someone leaked to ABC News that Mr. Hastert was himself a target of a Justice probe, and while it was quickly and officially denied, this kind of media ambush is typical of prosecutorial payback. Someone also leaked that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Deputy AG Paul McNulty had threatened to resign if President Bush returned material confiscated in the raid. So here we have someone at Justice trying to intimidate not just the House Speaker but also President Bush. If we were Mr. Bush, we'd have accepted both resignations on those grounds alone. One of the sillier criticisms is that Mr. Bush is out of line for having intervened in this dispute. He has decided to seal the confiscated materials for 45 days while Justice works out a compromise with House officials. Federal prosecutors work for the President, and if there is ever a case where the White House should intervene it is one that involves a Constitutional clash between the branches. It's revealing that the same media voices that want Congress to limit the President's war powers also want to limit his ability in this case to control federal prosecutors. They seem to want a feeble Presidency. Another, and related, bad argument is that the FBI raid was kosher because it was approved by a judge. But judicial warrants can never trump core Constitutional powers--whether they are the rights of Congress under the Speech and Debate Clause, or the executive's ability to conduct warrantless wiretaps against al Qaeda under Presidential war powers. This willingness of modern liberalism to confer vast new authority on the judiciary is itself a violation of the separation of powers. The Founders designed a system in which each branch had to defend its own prerogatives, not one in which some local or district court judge was the final arbiter in such disputes. Congress and the President are ultimately accountable to the voters, while judges are not. Mr. Bush's sensible decision to seal the Jefferson evidence has had the useful effect of calming this dispute down. If it turns out that Justice has to prosecute its case without evidence obtained from Mr. Jefferson's Congressional office, so be it. Prosecutors have to work around such limitations all the time. Congress's right to legislate without being intimidated by the executive is a core element of the Constitution, and bullying prosecutors shouldn't be allowed to violate it. opinionjournal.com